Do you understand how rtrded this sounds? Using basic common sense when US invades a foreign country we create a broken cycle. 1. Destabilize the region creating massive amounts of refugees who naive idiot americans welcome into our country uknowingly putting a burden on our economy as well as the fact these refugees want to kill us because our fckng stupid zionist controlled gov't. blew up their country for oil. 2. Make some half ass attempt to secure the region against hordes of rogue factions who seek to fill the void our invasion created. 3. We fail to create a new stable gov't. because we destroyed any kind of infrastructure the country had. 4. Israel and other psychotic countries reap the benefits of forced organ donations from prisoners of war and steal the invaded countries resources. 5. Rinse, repeat, whitewash truth pentagon controlled news networks lie to americans and we wait for the next ******* neocon to be a puppet for our bloated centralized plutocracy of a government. We are creating a shtstorm the likes you have never seen and it needs to stop before somebody gets a bomb big enough to wipe this shtshow off the map. Stop endorsing neocon profit wars.
You act like us letting in Muslim's and killing Muslim terrorists are the same issue. I can be pro war in middle east and against "refugees" entering this country
Perhaps, but the domestic money flow, whether to the military or other programs, isn't quite the same discussion. Certainly one can reasonably argue that there would be less money from the Federal government to those programs... but it isn't a sure thing, and even if there were there would not necessarily be less money flow overall. Shoring up infrastructure issues (especially EMP shielding for example) would provide the same sort of wellfare service without invading other nations. As would just funding the military without expending so many resources on invasions. Domestic spending isn't really tied to how often we go and mess up another nations (all the damn time). The prosperity of the nation isn't enhanced by constant warfare, and moneyflow to military and military contractors is simply an example of pre-existing prosperity. Agreed. Once we get a machine that allows us to look into parallel dimensions... I don't know. The ideal, obviously, is zero. But there are circumstantial factors to consider as well (whether or not more innocents are in imminent danger for not killing the target for example), and unfortunately ideals are rarely an achievable option. If the "terrorist" isn't doing anything? Isn't providing an immediate threat? There is no solid evidence that they will? Zero are acceptable. Then again I'd also want suspected terrorists captured and put on trial in the first place, not merely killed. If the "terrorist" is actively driving a truck bomb down a not-completely-deserted-street towards the local high population target? Then it's much more questionable to me, it's not a call I'd be comfortable making, but I'd probably be more willing to live with it, provided I otherwise did everything I could to minimize damage. Like I said, I don't know. It's too broad a question with too many potential situations that might change my opinion... or might not.
how many healthy cells can be sacrificed to remove cancerous cells? if you don't remove the cancer the host will die. do liberals think we can coexist with extremists who are untouchable because they hide behind civilians? that doesn't sound realistic at all. how long before they start using chemical weapons in paris, or set off a nuke someplace easy to get into, say Germany?
that is about 28 less per terrorist than the US track record. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 but on the positive side apparently they no longer throw candy from humvees to see if kids know where the IEDs are... or if they don't know you know... boom?
so you will find it acceptible if someone kills your family in order to kill 1 white supremacist who happened to be standing behind them in line at an ice-cream shop. after which the ones that did it will offer you nothing in return and will never answer for the harm they caused you? you can lie and say yeah fair enough but stop playing the victim role while using rethoric which in any other context you would consider to be evil. this is why people don't like you and either you can face it and try and do better or you can continue and eventually fail.
on what scale and in what capacity and when you say extremists do you include yourself and 1/3rd of the american populace or just the extremist muslims and when you say extremists muslims do you include all innocent muslims or are you throwing those in the extremist bin to justify your reign of terror over them? I have walked amongst beehives in a T-shirt. but the US is a little kid with a throwel. the more you throw dirt around the more bees are going to feel their home is in danger. perpetually feeding into a loop of stings and enviromental destruction. except you are all humans with families.
extremism will always be the enemy of the public, ragic. the thing that i, and i think a fair chunk of the rest of the TERRIBLE BRAINLESS/WASHED SNOOTY LIBERALS here object to is that you seem to both focus on the muslim extremism, and to say that to be muslim is extremism. the first is defensible and not over any line i can think of (in theory, at least), but the second is ridiculous unless you go on to say that to be religious or perhaps otherwise affiliated with a subculture is extremism edit- to get back to an earlier point as well, many of the people on these forums that were promoting any conspiracy theories with regards to the recent US action in syria are not liberal in most any modern sense of the word. they are our whole context on these forums. you can talk about people outside the forums, and their opinions and so on, but unless someone here is actively saying "I AGREE WITH X OUTSIDER", it strikes me as terribly irrelevant on your part.
The wars = refugees these two things go hand in hand. Question you should be asking yourself is wtf are we doing in the middle east? We don't need to be there and it benefits Israel, central bankers, and oil companies the most to destabilize all the countries surrounding zioland.
have you not been doing that? killing over 2 dozen innocents for every one. I mean the pictures are absolutely horrifying
